Dr. V.P. Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........seniority as per the direction of the tribunal vide annexure-3 to the petition, butdid not grant him the other benefits awarded by the tribunal, hence the petitioner approached this court by another writ petition being writ petition no. 17288 of 2000 wherein a direction was given to decide the representation of the petitioner. this representation has been rejected by the impugned order. hence, this writ petition.7. in our opinion, when this court had in its judgment dated 20.12.1999 (annexure-2 to the petition) upheld the award of the tribunal and the judgment of this court became final, the matter had become conclusive, and hence we cannot understand how the petitioner can be denied the benefits which have already been granted to him by the tribunal in its judgment annexure-1 to the petition and this court in its judgment annexure-2 to the petition.8. the petitioner admittedly retired on 30.7.1997 and now he can only be given notional promotion and other benefits with arrears.9. a counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, a reference has been made to the cases of dr. kamal uddin and dr. r.d. tripathi but we do not see how these cases could have been relevant to the petitioner's case, since the petitioner's case has become final by the judgments which are annexures-1 and 2 to the petition. it seems that the respondents never challenged the judgment of this court dated 20.12.1999 and hence they cannot challenge the same in these proceedings. it seems to us that the respondents have unnecessarily harassed the petitioner.10. the petition is therefore, allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to give notional promotion, personal pay scale with arrears and interest at 12% as claimed by the petitioner.11. the petition is allowed. no order as to costs.